Megyn Kelly Upbraids Rachel Maddow

Oh Megyn, give me a break. Rachel Maddow called it as she saw it, trying to explain why Justice Scalia would make such an offensive remark. It was Maddow’s right to call him a troll, as it was his right to have made offensive remarks.

Megan can be all offended if she wants. Her last line did bother me though. She said that the justices vote their consciences? Shouldn’t they be voting according to their understanding of the law? I know they are only human but surely interpreting according to the constitution has to be the goal.

I agree with you regarding “voting their consciences.” I want them to interpret the Constitution strictly and to avoid imposing their conscience on everyone else. Considerations other than strict interpretation erodes constitutional limits on government power.

I am not even for strict constitutional interpretation…I realize many of the things we have laws about weren’t even thought of when the constitution was being created. However,there has to be some basis there other than conscience. Prenumbras are fine. conscience is not. I can see Scalia outlawing birth control and divorce as a matter on conscience right now.

I suppose “conscience” can have different meanings to different people. If “conscience” as Kelly used it, she means the part of a good judge’s brain that allows him to compartmentalize and set-aside his personal views about a criminal defendant or other party to a lawsuit, a political philosophy, or the general incompetency of a legislature and render a crisp opinion, then I’m all for conscience in that context. However, in Kelly’s reference to Justices voting their “consciences”, I think I detect a common failing in the kind of Noveau-Fox (or Faux)-Conservative (“NFC”) fad that seems to grip a sizable minority in the country that likes to self-label as “conservative.” They fail to realize that constitutional issues that reach the Supreme Court should be resolved through diligent legal analysis rather that through sentiment, or internal preferences of individual justices. Indeed, the past conservative criticisms of the civil rights decisions of the Warren Court were largely based on the justices’ having imposed personal views on their legal decisions. The present criticism from NFCs, however, is that Justices should be free to impose their personal views so long as those views comport with those of the commenter.

I am, over time, something of a Scalia admirer. I must admit, however, that in just the past couple of years, he has come across as being gratuitously harsh and opinionated on issues that could be left to the written opinions of the Court.